臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

禁止使用武力自從聯合國憲章成立以來已成為了各國所接受的新國際習慣法。由於大規模毀滅性武器的誕生，大國之間的戰爭逐漸減少，取而代之是小規模的衝突。國家無疑為了避免正面衝突而採取具有挑撥性較低的手段，其中即包括了採取執法單位來實施其目的或政策。在面對這個新興的議題，傳統禁止武力使用對於執法武力使用的二分法得到了挑戰。

在《圭亞那對蘇利南仲裁案》當中，蘇利南的執法單位並未對圭亞那的石油鑽機人員使用武力，僅有口頭上說如果不離開則後果自負等警告。仲裁庭認為蘇利南的執法行為已逾越了界線，並落入禁止使用武力的範圍之內。該判決雖未提及區分的理由與原因，然其仍為首次在國際法院當中對於該問題提出了先例，並且吾人相信並不會是最後出現的案例。面對這些問題，本論文嘗試針對這個新興問題提出區分要件，理由，以希望有助於這個議題未來的發展。

惟國際社會迅速發展，各國的手段不斷增加，其中領土爭端在國際法上是不容易解決的問題。而國家在領土爭端區域內，有的為了本身經濟利益而從事開發行為，有的為了有效統治而行使執法管轄權，而導致雙方發生衝突。在這種情況下，如果執法單位為了達到驅趕效果而使用武力，甚至導致一方人員傷亡，是執法過當還是落入了禁止使用武力的規範，值得深究。故在主權衝突的區域採取武力，無論是否為了執法，亦成為了本論文的重點，本論文會一併嘗試處理這個問題。

Upon gaining the status of customary international law, the principle of non-use of force has become the cornerstone of the contemporary international law. Combining with the introduction to Weapon of Mass Destruction, war has become less common, consecutively replaced by small scale armed incidence between major States. In place of the traditional method, States have shift to many less provocative measures, which are called the Gray Area by many international relations scholars. One of these measures are the reliance on law enforcement officials to enforcing claims on many fronts.

Traditionally, the use of force by law enforcement is straightforward excluded under the scope of the prohibition. However, with the growing stead of the conflicts, this so-called traditional dichotomy has become more blur than ever. In the Guyana/Suriname Award, the Tribunal explicitly pronounced what Suriname believed was merely law enforcement operation a threat of force that violates international law. This case is the first and will not be the last of determining this issue. Facing the growing challenge of this aspect, and the gap that international law currently has, this thesis endeavors to resolve the issue and tackle the challenge of distinguishing between these concepts.

Moreover, while it is common sense that the traditional role of law enforcement officials is to maintain public law and order, more States have used them to enforce maritime claims in sovereignty disputed territory. This growing threat is no doubt relevant to the distinguishment, and it is essential to determine what is the nature of such activity. The matter is nonetheless political sensitive, but as a part of the international law community, it is our responsibility to resolve and clarify what kind of issues that this challenge may possibly bring.

Table of contents
致謝詞 i
Abstract iv
中文摘要 vi
Chapter 1 1
Maritime security, creeping jurisdiction and the challenges from the use of force by law enforcement 1
I. Challenges from maritime security and the growing reliance on law enforcement 1
II. Creeping jurisdiction, excessive maritime claims, overlapping waters and the use of force in sovereignty disputed territory 2
III. Law enforcement and Gray Zone 5
A. Definition of Gray Zone 6
B. Law enforcement as one of the Gray zone activities 8
C. The problem of incorporating the “Gray zone” concept in international law 9
IV. The use of force by law enforcement in contemporary international law 10
V. Research purposes, scope of the research, and structure of the research 15
A. Research purposes 15
B. Scope of the research 16
C. Thesis’s structure 16
D. Overview 17
Chapter 2 1
Maritime enforcement jurisdiction and the use of force under the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea 1
I. Introduction 1
II. Maritime jurisdiction under UNCLOS 2
A. Internal waters 2
B. Territorial sea 4
C. Contiguous zone 5
D. Exclusive Economic Zone 7
E. The High Seas 9
III. Use of force under UNCLOS 12
A. Use of force at the high seas: the demilitarization of UNCLOS? 12
B. Use of force against vessels in the innocent passage 17
IV. Conclusion 22
Chapter 3 24
Use of force by law enforcement in international law 24
I. Bilateral and Multilateral treaties framing the law enforcement use of force 25
A. United Nations Convention of the law of the sea and the 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement 26
B. Enforcement in the context of suppressing illicit trafficking in Narcotic drugs and Psychotropic Substances 27
II. Principles govern the law enforcement use of force under customary international law 30
A. The Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials 30
B. Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials 31
III. Judicial decisions regarding the law enforcement use of force 33
A. I’m Alone case 33
B. Red Crusader 38
C. M/V Saiga 40
IV. The contemporary regime of law enforcement use of force 45
A. Principle of necessity 45
B. Principles of proportionality 50
C. Principle of precaution 52
V. Crossing law enforcement use of force and other regimes 54
A. International human rights 54
B. International humanitarian law 56
VI. Conclusion 57
Chapter 4 60
Use of force by law enforcement officials in sovereignty disputed territories 60
I. Law enforcement and the use of force 60
A. The prohibition of the use of force 61
B. Minimum threshold of using force – the use of force by law enforcement 63
II. Use of force at sovereign disputed areas 70
A. Definition of the use of force at sovereign disputed areas 70
B. Sending military and police toward sovereignty disputed territory as a threat of force 72
C. Case law concerning the use of force under sovereignty disputed territories 79
D. Principles that govern the use of force under sovereignty disputed territory 89
III. Conclusion 102
Chapter 5 104
The distinction between military and law enforcement 104
I. Military activities v. law enforcement activities 105
A. Military activities 106
B. Law enforcement activities 112
C. The distinguishing between military activities and law enforcement activities 114
D. Concluding remarks 131
II. Law enforcement use of force under the law enforcement regime and ius ad bellum regime 133
A. First criterion: elements of Article 2(4) 135
B. Second criterion: the task of the action 139
C. Third criterion: basis for jurisdiction 142
D. Fourth criterion: the gravity and scale of the act 148
E. Fifth criterion: the author and the subjected vessel 151
F. Concluding remarks 156
III. Conclusion 157
Chapter 6. Conclusions 159
Bibliography 164
Cases 171
Electronical sources 173
International treaties and conventions 174
United Nations Documents 175
Miscellaneous 177

` (1930). Convention Relating to the Regulation of Aerial Navigation, Journal of Air Law & Commerce, 1, 94.
` (1967). The Convention on Conduct of Fishing Operations in the North Atlantic, International Law Materials, 6, 760-762.
Acer Yücel. (2003). The Aegean maritime disputes and international law. Ashgate.
Allen, C. (2006). Limits on the Use of Force in Maritime Operations in Support of WMD Counter-Proliferation Initiatives. International Law Studies, 81, 77–139.
Amnesty International. (2015). Use of force guidelines for implementation of the un basic principles on the use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials.
Andreone, G. (2015). The exclusive economic zone. In D. Rothwell, A.O. Elferink, K. Scott & T. Stephens (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea, (pp. 158–180). Oxford University Press.
Beckman, R. (2013). The UN Convention on the law of the Sea and the Maritime disputes in the South China Sea. American Journal of International Law, 107(1), 142–163.
Barret, J. & Burke, N. (2016). Report on the Obligations of States under Article 74(3) and 83(3) of UNCLOS in respect of Undelimited Maritime Areas. British Institute of International and Comparative Law.
Berhe, I. (2016). The Ethio-Eritrea Claims Commission on Use of Force: Issue of Self-Defense or Violation of Sovereignty. World Academy of Science Engineer and Technology International Journal of Lay and Political Science, 10, 2171–2188.
Boczek, B. A. (1989). Peaceful purposes provisions of the United Nations Convention on the law of the sea. Ocean Development & International Law, 20(4), 359–389.
Boyle, A. E., & Chinkin, C. M. (2007). The making of international law. Oxford University Press.
Brownlie, I. (1961). The Use of Force in Self-Defense. British Yearbook of International Law, 37, 183–268.
Brownlie, I. (1963). International law and the use of force by states. Clarendon press.
Churchill, R. R., & Lowe, A. V. (1999). The law of the sea. Manchester University Press.
Colombos, C. J. (1972). The international law of the sea. Longman.
Corten, O. (2010). The law against war. Hart.
Crawford, J. (1980). The legal effect of automatic reservations to the jurisdiction of the international court. British Yearbook of International Law, 50(1), 63–86.
Crawford, J. (2012). Brownlie's principles of public international law (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Damrosch, L. F. (2016). Military activities in the unclos compulsory dispute settlement system: Implications of the south china sea arbitration for u.s. ratification of unclos. American Journal of International Law Unbound, 110, 273–278.
Dickinson, E. D. (1933). The Clipperton Island case. American Journal of International Law, 27(1), 130–133.
Donovan, T. (2004). Suriname-Guyana Maritime and Territorial Disputes: A Legal and Historical Analysis. Journal of Transnational Law & Policy, 132, 41–99.
Dinstein, Y. (2017). War, aggression and self-defence. Cambridge University Press.
Edeson, W. R., Freestone, D., & Gudmundsdottir, E. (2001). Legislating for sustainable Fisheries a guide to implementing the 1993 Fao Compliance agreement and 1995 Un fish Stocks Agreement. World Bank.
Fidell, E. (1976). Fisheries Legislation: Naval Enforcement. Journal of Maritime & Commerce, 7, 351–366.
Fitzmaurice, G. (1936). The Case of the I’m Alone. British Yearbook of International Law, 17, 82–112.
Fitzmaurice, G. (1953). The law and procedure of the International Court of Justice, 1951-1954: General principles and sources of law. British Yearbook of International Law, 30, 1–70.
Fenrick, W. J. (1981). Legal limits on the use of force by Canadian Warships engaged in law enforcement. Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire Canadien De Droit International, 18, 113–145.
Gamble, J. K. (1976). The Law of the Sea Conference: Dispute Settlement in Perspective. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 9, 323–343.
Gardiner, R. K. (2017). Treaty interpretation. Oxford University Press.
Gill, T. D. (1992). The forcible protection, affirmation and exercise of rights by states under contemporary international law. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, 23, 105–173.
Goldsmith, J. (2013). How cyber changes the laws of war. European Journal of International Law, 24(1), 129–138.
Gordon, E. (1985). Article 2(4) in Historical Context. Yale Journal of International Law, 10, 271–278.
Gray, C. (2006). The Eritrea/Ethiopia Claims Commission oversteps ITS Boundaries: A Partial Award? European Journal of International Law, 17(4), 699–721.
Gray, C. (2018). International law and the use of force (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Gray, C. (2018). The conflict in Georgia. In T. Ruys, O. Corten, & A. Hoffer (Eds.). The Use of Force in International Law: a Case-based Approach, (pp. 721–728). Oxford University Press.
Hole, P. (2001). The Guyana-Suriname Maritime Boundary Dispute and its Regional Context. IBRU Boundary Security Bulletin, 9, 99–107.
Hongzhou, Z., & Bateman, S. (2017). Fishing militia, the securitization of Fishery and the South China Sea Dispute. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 39(2), 288–314.
Janis, M. W. (1977). Dispute settlement in the law of the sea convention: The military activities exception. Ocean Development & International Law, 4(1), 51–65.
Jayakumar, S., B., K. T. T., & Beckman, R. C. (2014). The South China sea disputes and law of the sea. Edward Elgar.
Jennings, R., & Watts, A. (1996). Oppenheim's international law (9th ed., Vol. 1). Longman.
Joseph, S., & Castan, M. (2017). The international covenant on civil and political rights: Cases, materials, and commentary. Oxford University Press.
Klein, N. (2009). Dispute settlement in the Un Convention on the law of the sea. Cambridge University Press.
Klein, N. S. (2013). Maritime security and the law of the sea. Oxford University Press.
Klein, N. (2016). Expansions and restrictions in the unclos dispute settlement regime: Lessons from recent decisions. Chinese Journal of International Law, 403–415.
Kraska, J., & Wilson, B. (2009). American Security and Law of the Sea. Ocean Development and International Law, 40, 268–290.
Kraska, J. (2015). Military operations. In D. Rothwell, A.O. Elferink, K. Scott & T. Stephens (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea (pp. 865–887). Oxford University Press
Kraska, J. (2015). The Law of Naval Warfare and China’s Maritime Militia. International Law Studies, 91, 450–467.
Kwast, P. J. (2008). Maritime law enforcement and the use of force: Reflections on the categorisation of forcible action at sea in the light of the Guyana/Suriname award. Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 13(1), 49–91.
Kwiatkowska, B. (1989). The 200 mile exclusive economic zone in the new law of the sea. Nijhoff.
Kwiatkowska, B. (1991). Creeping jurisdiction beyond 200 miles in the light of the 1982 law of the sea convention and State practice. Ocean Development & International Law, 22(2), 153–187.
Kwiatkowska, B. (1999). Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada), Jurisdiction. American Journal of International Law, 93, 502–507.
Lauterpacht, E. (1968). The legal irrelevance of the “state of war.” Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at Its Annual Meeting, 62, 58–68.
Lowe, A.V. (1991). The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations and the Contemporary Law of the Sea. In H. Robertson (Ed.). International Law Studies: The Law of Naval Operations, (pp. 109–147).
Lowe, A. V. (2011). The United Nations Security Council and war: The evolution of thought and practice since 1945. Oxford University Press.
Lin, H. (2010). Offensive Cyber Operations and the Use of Force. Journal of National Security Law and Policy, 4, 63–86.
Marston, G. (1992). United Kingdom materials on international Law 1991. British Yearbook of International Law, 62(1), 535–721.
Melzer, N. (2015). Targeted killing in international law. Oxford University Press.
Military and security developments involving the people's Republic of China 2016. (2016).
Morris, L. J., Mazarr, M. J., Hornung, J. W., Pézard Stéphanie, Binnendijk, A., & Kepe, M. (2019). Gaining competitive advantage in the gray zone: Response options for coercive aggression below the threshold of major war. RAND Corporation.
Mueller, G. (1978). The United Nations Draft Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials. Police Studies: International Review of Police Development, 1, 17–21.
Müllerson Rein. (2000). Ordering anarchy: International law in international society. Martinus Nijhoff.
Nordquist, M., Grandy, N., Nandan, S., & Rosenne, S. (Eds.). (1995). United Nations Conventions on The Law of The Sea: A Commentary (Vol. 2). Brill.
Nordquist, M., Grandy, N., Nandan, S., & Rosenne, S. (Eds.). (1995). United Nations Conventions on The Law of The Sea: A Commentary (Vol. 3). Brill.
Nordquist, M., Grandy, N., Nandan, S., A. Yankov, & Rosenne, S. (Eds.). (1995). United Nations Conventions on The Law of The Sea: A Commentary (Vol. 4). Brill.
O'Connell, D. P. (1984). The international law of the sea (Vol. 2). Clarendon Press.
O'Connell, D. P. (1970). International law and Contemporary Naval Operations. British Yearbook of International Law, 44, 19–86.
Papastavridis, E. (2013). The interception of vessels on the high seas: Contemporary challenges to the legal order of the oceans. Hart Publishing.
Roach, J. A. & Smith, R. W., J. A. (2012). Excessive maritime claims. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Pedrozo, R. (2010). Coastal State Jurisdiction over Marine Data Collection in the Exclusive Economic Zone: U.S. View. Military Activities in The EEZ: A U.S.-China Dialogue on The Security and International Law in The Maritime Commons, (pp. 23–29).
Rauch, E. (1985). Military Uses of the Oceans. German Yearbook of International Law, 28, 229–267.
Reuland, R. (1993). The Customary Right of Hot Pursuit onto the High Seas: Annotations to Article 111 of the LOSC. Virginia Journal of International Law, 33, 557–590.
Roscini, M. (2016). Cyber operations and the use of force in international law. Oxford University Press.
Ruys, T. (2014). The meaning oF “Force” and the boundaries of The jus Ad Bellum: Are “Minimal” uses of Force excluded from UN Charter Article 2(4)? American Journal of International Law, 108(2), 159–210.
Sean, C.-M. (2017). Police use of force under international law. Cambridge University Press.
Sadurska, R. (1988). Threats of force. American Journal of International Law, 82(2), 239–268.
Schmitt, M. N. (1999). Computer network attack and the use of force in international law: Thoughts on a normative framework. Essays on Law and War at the Fault Lines. 3–48.
Schofield, C. H., Lee, S., & Kwon, M.-S. (2014). The limits of maritime jurisdiction. Martinus Nijhoff.
Shaw, M. N. (2017). International law (8th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Shearer, I. (1998). The Development of International Law with Respect to the Law Enforcement Roles of Navies and Coast Guards in Peacetime. International Law Studies, 71, 429–453.
Shi, X., & Chang, Y.-C. (2020). Order of provisional measures in Ukraine versus Russia and Mixed disputes concerning military activities. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 11(2), 278–294.
Simma, B., & Wessendorf, N. (2012). The charter of the United Nations: A commentary (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.
Simma, B., & Wessendorf, N. (2012). The charter of the United Nations: A commentary (Vol. 2). Oxford University Press.
Stein, E. (1972). Legal restraints in modern arms control agreements. American Journal of International Law, 66(2), 255–289.
Stephens, D. (1999). The Impact of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention on the Conduct of Peacetime Naval/Military Operations. California West of International Law, 29, 283–311.
Sweeney, R. J., Tollison, R. D., & Willett, T. D. (1974). Market failure, the common-pool problem, and ocean resource exploitation. The Journal of Law and Economics, 17(1), 179–192.
Talmon, S (2014). The South China Sea Arbitration: Is there a case to answer? In Talmon, S., & Jia, B. B. (Eds.). The South China Sea Arbitration: A Chinese Perspective (pp. 15–79).
Tanaka, Y. (2019). The international law of the sea. Cambridge University Press.
Wolfrum, R. (1981). Restricting the Use of the Sea to Peaceful Purposes: Demilitarization in Being? German Yearbook of International Law, 24, 200–241.
Yang, P. (2020). The Determination of the Military Activities under the UNCLOS in the Kerch Strait Incident. China Oceans Law Review, 33, 140–154.
Yiallourides, C., & Yihdego, Z. (2018). Disputed territories and the law on the use of Force: Lessons from the Eritrea-Ethiopia Case. Ethiopian Yearbook of International Law, 35–61.
Yiallourides, C. (2019). Maritime disputes and international Law: Disputed waters and Seabed resources in Asia and Europe. Routledge.
Yiallourides, C., Gehring, M. W., Gauci, J.-P., Khalfaoui, A., & Clare, M. (2018). The use of force in relation to Sovereignty disputes over land territory. The British Institute of International and Comparative Law.
Yong Hong, S., & Van Dyke, J. M. (Eds.). (2009). Maritime Boundary Disputes, Settlement Processes, and The Law of the Sea (Vol. 65). Publications on Ocean Development.
Zhang, H. (2016). Chinese fishermen in disputed waters: Not quite a “PEOPLE'S war.” Marine Policy, 68, 65–73.
Zou, K., & Ye, Q. (2017). Interpretation and application of article 298 of the law of the sea convention in recent annex vii arbitrations: An appraisal. Ocean Development & International Law, 48(3-4), 331–344.